What would be nice to see in a 135 IS:1) Maximum aperture of f/2 or faster2) L-series lens with silky-smooth focus ring3) Full weather sealing4) Nine-blade aperture which remains circular down to at least f/45) Full macro (or quasi-macro) capability

I have no desire to trade a large aperture for is. I used to consider only lenses with is... but I shoot at apertures and shutter speeds that don't require Is. And with usable isos of full frame... I have to be in near pitch black... ok that's an exaggeration, but still.

I have no desire to trade a large aperture for is. I used to consider only lenses with is... but I shoot at apertures and shutter speeds that don't require Is. And with usable isos of full frame... I have to be in near pitch black... ok that's an exaggeration, but still.

I can certainly understand this as I have a host of large aperture lenses.

But, I think the new Canon "IS" line of primes - including these new ones - are probably the most practical solution for 99% of photographers out there. And in some cases, they have some nice improvements over what they are replacing not even including IS. They aren't necessarily the cheapest, but they offer a great combination of features, build, and image quality.

First, two of the lenses most notable for being able to "shoot in the dark" are the 50mm f/1.2 (my current favorite lens) and the 85mm f/1.2. However, by having an aperture this large you can run into focus shift issues, lesser performance when smallest aperture is desired, slower autofocus due to more glass to move, and potentially increased lens flare at smaller apertures. The IS alternatives that will be at f/1.8 might not get the magical bokeh of f/1.2 nor color/contrast on par, but it will be somewhat close and still have excellent dark capabilities at f/1.8 - enhanced even moreso by IS. The f/1.8 IS lenses will autofocus faster, be lighter, usable in all scenarios, and require less skill to use. Thus, for most photographers they would probably be a better buy at least for general usage. For specialty usage, the 50 1.2/80 1.2 will remain supreme... But that does not mean these lenses are junk, I would just say more practical.

The 135mm f/2L is an interesting case because it does focus quite quickly and is easy to master - plus it is comparatively cheap. However, it also is an older design with straight aperture blades that can result in angular bokeh balls that can be distracting - and the focal length is getting a bit long without IS indoors even for f/2. When shooting dimly lit indoors, I generally like to keep things at minimum 1/100 to get sharp pictures in avoiding motion blur while still letting a decent amount of light in. But at 135mm, 1/100 introduces increased risk of camera shake - thus I'd have to increase shutter and perhaps ISO to keep things where I'd like them. For these reasons, an F/2L IS 135mm would be much welcomed. While this rumored 135mm is only f/2.8, pricing suggests that the F/2L will likely be discontinued and probably replaced by an aforementioned F/2L IS, and the f/2.8 IS will fill the under $1000 price vacuum created as a result. And it will have curved aperture blades for nice circular bokeh balls!

So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture ( f/1.8-f/2.8 ) + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages. In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes. Another example at 24mm - the 24mm f/1.4L II lets in tons of light, but for the typical usage of 24mm landscape, the 24mm f/1.4 is much more flare-prone at f/8+ than the cheaper 24mm f/2.8 IS; at 24mm I'd actually prefer the 2.8 IS over the 1.4L. With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow (f/4+).

So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture (f/1.8-f/2. + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages. In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes. With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow.

I agree with you on the new range of non L IS primes; they are very good and not only the best value for money but also versatility, as you say.

However I don't agree on the 135L; the Sporgon crystal ball doesn't see an IS version of this coming, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Whilst the current lens may be the Holy Grail of L lenses to many aspiring photographers - indeed if CR had Coat of Arms it would probably be two crossed 135L lenses mounted in front of a FF sensor atop a pile of third party junk - it's reached that position because it is 'affordable'. To be worthwhile for Canon to develop a better lens with IS it is going to have to be considerably more expensive, and I suspect at the present time they won't feel there is a financial benefit to themselves as a business. Also the third party manufacturers haven't produced a 135 IS or 1.8 version which is a sign they don't think the sales volume / price point is worthwhile.

I do think we will see a 50 IS very soon, and possibly a 85 version after that which bridges the price gulf between the current version and the 1.2L

You make a good point, in that the 135L is a fantastic bang for buck and built up a great reputation because of it. Perhaps it would not make sense to replace it. I also haven't seen any published patents for a 135L replacement.

My thought is, instead of just selling the current L version for $999, Canon could discontinue the current model and come out with an F/2L IS for $1699 and a F/2.8 IS for $699. Canon did exactly this with the 24-70 - they discontinued the 24-70 and came out with a more expensive 24-70 II f/2.8 plus a cheaper 24-70 f/4 IS. It is also helpful that the length of the 135L and simple design allows for the internal space to add an IS group without major hardship.

By doing so, Canon may get the legions of 135L owners to upgrade for the IS and circular aperture blades, while opening up a new market with the new cheaper f/2.8 lens.

While the current F/2L is spectacular @ f/2 in decent light, when you stop it down or attempt to use it in dim light, its lack of the latest technology can become apparent due to the straight aperture blades and long focal length w/o IS respectively.

That being said, I do realize the camera market isn't doing so hot lately so this may be more fantasy than reality It would just be nice to have a more compact, lighter, modern alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 II for dim indoor situations.

I think it comes down to the fact that the 135mm is a niche focal length, at least that is my experience over the years with 35mm format; maybe it'll change with aps as it 'becomes' a 216mm but we are probably moving more towards potential 135 L customers moving to FF anyway.

I realise that on CR it is about the most popular lens ever produced, but IMO that's not reflected across photography in general.

assuming we get a 135mm f/2L is, What say everyone about the Paint? will it be white or black? Since this would be a great indoor sports lens perhaps this will be the new "baby white tele"! Perhaps we should be looking for a small white lense during the Souci Olympics! What sport would a 135mm IS be most likely used? Do they have outdoor night events?

Lets hope they dont make it an ugly white lens. Thats a reason for me not to buy lenses, the white ones are extremly obstrusive in my oppinion. I dont want my gear to be that noticable, thats why i also carry a leica for general shooting and only do jobs with my canon gear ..

assuming we get a 135mm f/2L is, What say everyone about the Paint? will it be white or black? Since this would be a great indoor sports lens perhaps this will be the new "baby white tele"! Perhaps we should be looking for a small white lense during the Souci Olympics! What sport would a 135mm IS be most likely used? Do they have outdoor night events?

Paint it all red for all I care.

As for indoor sports... I could see using it in sports like volleyball or diving if you are allowed to get close enough to the action... but those are obviously summer sports...

I would like to see how IS could have handled shooting video on my bike last week. There were some shots that I bet it would have a problem with, but it should smooth out the bumps, and that is a big deal.

So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture (f/1.8-f/2. + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages. In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes. With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow.

I agree with you on the new range of non L IS primes; they are very good and not only the best value for money but also versatility, as you say.

However I don't agree on the 135L; the Sporgon crystal ball doesn't see an IS version of this coming, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Whilst the current lens may be the Holy Grail of L lenses to many aspiring photographers - indeed if CR had Coat of Arms it would probably be two crossed 135L lenses mounted in front of a FF sensor atop a pile of third party junk - it's reached that position because it is 'affordable'. To be worthwhile for Canon to develop a better lens with IS it is going to have to be considerably more expensive, and I suspect at the present time they won't feel there is a financial benefit to themselves as a business. Also the third party manufacturers haven't produced a 135 IS or 1.8 version which is a sign they don't think the sales volume / price point is worthwhile.

I do think we will see a 50 IS very soon, and possibly a 85 version after that which bridges the price gulf between the current version and the 1.2L

For anyone who has used the 135 f/2 for a long time, we understand the quality of bokeh it has, and it's not something trivial. Any new version, or third party version, will very likely have a poorer quality of bokeh. That's the reason I may never sell mine. Sure, it's priced at a point that is accessible to entry level photogs (and for that reason it's spat on by those who won't be caught dead using any lens under $1500). But its overall image quality combined with its usable medium telephoto focal length (especially on a full frame) really is as good as it gets, it seems to me. It simply can't be improved upon.

And given the history of these new IS primes, they seem to favor replacing the older lens with a slower aperture, along with the IS...and making it all very dinky and feather light. Given the existence of (what I say would actually be on a coat of arms instead) the ubiquitous 70-200 f/2.8 ii IS and the 100mm f/2.8 IS macro, there certainly will never be a 135mm f/2.8 IS, especially one that is a macro.

Is a new 135mm f/1.8 stabilized third party lens, going to be enough to make me buy one (let alone replace my 135L with it)? No. Would I if it were f/1.6 or f/1.4? Yes, I would at least buy it and use it alongside the current 135! I'd love even faster primes at other focal lengths also, though...but I guess since the "rebel masses" don't ever want to buy a big lens of any kind, and the "pro photogs" like things the way they are...it will never happen.

So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture (f/1.8-f/2. + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages. In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes. With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow.

I agree with you on the new range of non L IS primes; they are very good and not only the best value for money but also versatility, as you say.

However I don't agree on the 135L; the Sporgon crystal ball doesn't see an IS version of this coming, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Whilst the current lens may be the Holy Grail of L lenses to many aspiring photographers - indeed if CR had Coat of Arms it would probably be two crossed 135L lenses mounted in front of a FF sensor atop a pile of third party junk - it's reached that position because it is 'affordable'. To be worthwhile for Canon to develop a better lens with IS it is going to have to be considerably more expensive, and I suspect at the present time they won't feel there is a financial benefit to themselves as a business. Also the third party manufacturers haven't produced a 135 IS or 1.8 version which is a sign they don't think the sales volume / price point is worthwhile.

I do think we will see a 50 IS very soon, and possibly a 85 version after that which bridges the price gulf between the current version and the 1.2L

For anyone who has used the 135 f/2 for a long time, we understand the quality of bokeh it has, and it's not something trivial. Any new version, or third party version, will very likely have a poorer quality of bokeh. That's the reason I may never sell mine. Sure, it's priced at a point that is accessible to entry level photogs (and for that reason it's spat on by those who won't be caught dead using any lens under $1500). But its overall image quality combined with its usable medium telephoto focal length (especially on a full frame) really is as good as it gets, it seems to me. It simply can't be improved upon.

And given the history of these new IS primes, they seem to favor replacing the older lens with a slower aperture, along with the IS...and making it all very dinky and feather light. Given the existence of (what I say would actually be on a coat of arms instead) the ubiquitous 70-200 f/2.8 ii IS and the 100mm f/2.8 IS macro, there certainly will never be a 135mm f/2.8 IS, especially one that is a macro.

Is a new 135mm f/1.8 stabilized third party lens, going to be enough to make me buy one (let alone replace my 135L with it)? No. Would I if it were f/1.6 or f/1.4? Yes, I would at least buy it and use it alongside the current 135! I'd love even faster primes at other focal lengths also, though...but I guess since the "rebel masses" don't ever want to buy a big lens of any kind, and the "pro photogs" like things the way they are...it will never happen.

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135 i always take the 135 over the 70-200 now unless i am shooting something where the zoom is essential

Actually both the Zeiss APO Sonnar and probably the Sony-Zeiss ZA versions beat the Canon in sheer IQ. The now discontinued CV 125mm APO Macro Lanthar was also a jewel (and a macro too!); very difficult to find used and mostly at exorbitant prices.

There is plenty of room for improvement. The Canon does deserve praise though for being still competitive many years after its release.

So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture (f/1.8-f/2. + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages. In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes. With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow.

I agree with you on the new range of non L IS primes; they are very good and not only the best value for money but also versatility, as you say.

However I don't agree on the 135L; the Sporgon crystal ball doesn't see an IS version of this coming, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Whilst the current lens may be the Holy Grail of L lenses to many aspiring photographers - indeed if CR had Coat of Arms it would probably be two crossed 135L lenses mounted in front of a FF sensor atop a pile of third party junk - it's reached that position because it is 'affordable'. To be worthwhile for Canon to develop a better lens with IS it is going to have to be considerably more expensive, and I suspect at the present time they won't feel there is a financial benefit to themselves as a business. Also the third party manufacturers haven't produced a 135 IS or 1.8 version which is a sign they don't think the sales volume / price point is worthwhile.

I do think we will see a 50 IS very soon, and possibly a 85 version after that which bridges the price gulf between the current version and the 1.2L

For anyone who has used the 135 f/2 for a long time, we understand the quality of bokeh it has, and it's not something trivial. Any new version, or third party version, will very likely have a poorer quality of bokeh. That's the reason I may never sell mine. Sure, it's priced at a point that is accessible to entry level photogs (and for that reason it's spat on by those who won't be caught dead using any lens under $1500). But its overall image quality combined with its usable medium telephoto focal length (especially on a full frame) really is as good as it gets, it seems to me. It simply can't be improved upon.

And given the history of these new IS primes, they seem to favor replacing the older lens with a slower aperture, along with the IS...and making it all very dinky and feather light. Given the existence of (what I say would actually be on a coat of arms instead) the ubiquitous 70-200 f/2.8 ii IS and the 100mm f/2.8 IS macro, there certainly will never be a 135mm f/2.8 IS, especially one that is a macro.

Is a new 135mm f/1.8 stabilized third party lens, going to be enough to make me buy one (let alone replace my 135L with it)? No. Would I if it were f/1.6 or f/1.4? Yes, I would at least buy it and use it alongside the current 135! I'd love even faster primes at other focal lengths also, though...but I guess since the "rebel masses" don't ever want to buy a big lens of any kind, and the "pro photogs" like things the way they are...it will never happen.

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135 i always take the 135 over the 70-200 now unless i am shooting something where the zoom is essential

You've touched on an interesting point. The 135L doesn't drop much focal length when it's focussed close to MFD. Most 70-200 lenses drop a little or a lot depending on the design (The newest Nikon version took quite a rap over it). So I find that the difference in framing between a 135L and a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II fully zoomed is only a few foot steps difference. There isn't a great deal between them at the long end if you are prepared to step forward a few feet.

The 135L is one of Canon's finest in terms of image output and rendering. But there is a small room for improvement, it could do with newer coatings. The MFD could do with matching or exceeding the current 70-200 lenses. It could gain an extra 1/3 stop easily by pushing the filter size to 77mm and upping the objective lens diameter a tad. The aperture blades are from an older era and are a round design when stopped down. Drop down to f2.8 or f4 and shoot at a spectacular highlight and you will see a distinct shape to the bokeh, corresponding to the aperture blades. Wide open, it's fine. So yes, it's a stunning lens to use and in the right hands can achieve lovely photographs, yes it's a lot easier to use than a 85mm f1.2 II L. Yes it has a small margin of potential improvement...as long as all of the benefits which the current model has. The new 24-70IIL sacrifices some of the older models benefits, the new hood isn't any where near as useful as the old one. The new one flares worse as a result (even with the new coatings). It's slightly wider at the 24mm end...but is no where near a 70mm at the long end. Looks more like a 60mm to me. Plus, it looses focal length as the point of focus draws to MFD and it's MFD isn't anywhere near as close. For wedding work, a stellar copy of the mkI is the better choice. For landscape work, the mkII is the better choice.

Actually both the Zeiss APO Sonnar and probably the Sony-Zeiss ZA versions beat the Canon in sheer IQ. The now discontinued CV 125mm APO Macro Lanthar was also a jewel (and a macro too!); very difficult to find used and mostly at exorbitant prices.

There is plenty of room for improvement. The Canon does deserve praise though for being still competitive many years after its release.

I object, you're full of conjecture there. You've not used any of those lenses you mention, have you? Have you even used the Canon 135? Certainly the Zeiss f/2 135 is sharper, but is it "better"? It has no autofocus, not sure about its bokeh. It couldn't possibly have better bokeh...because that's quite impossible. As for the Sony mount f/1.8, I very highly doubt it is as sharp as the Canon. So yeah, sorry but no...neither of those is "better". If you want to speak soley about sharpness, there are a few Leica M lenses that are sharper, but so what?